Re: mworker: execvp failure depending on argv[0]

2018-01-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:31:51PM +0100, William Lallemand wrote: > From ce9920d284e55600ef324a322a3aed92dd2af02f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: William Lallemand > Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 23:12:27 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] BUG/MEDIUM: mworker: execvp failure depending on

mworker: execvp failure depending on argv[0]

2018-01-09 Thread William Lallemand
That one can really make you crazy if you are in this exact case :-) -- William Lallemand >From ce9920d284e55600ef324a322a3aed92dd2af02f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: William Lallemand Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 23:12:27 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] BUG/MEDIUM: mworker: execvp

Re: [PATCH 1/2] BUG/MINOR: lua: Fix default value for pattern in Socket.receive

2018-01-09 Thread Tim Düsterhus
Willy, Am 09.01.2018 um 20:07 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > Indeed, we try to perform backports by batches because it requires a > bit of concentration. Understood. > That's why it's important for the stable team > that the commits are properly marked for backports, as you did. So > thanks for that

Re: [PATCH 1/2] BUG/MINOR: lua: Fix default value for pattern in Socket.receive

2018-01-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 06:55:59PM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > Willy, I notice that you did not backport to earlier than 1.8, yet. Do > you usually do this shortly before release or did you forget? At least > the two MINOR ones should be backported to 1.6 also. Indeed, we try to perform

Cache & ACLs issue

2018-01-09 Thread Pierre Cheynier
I'm experimenting the small objects cache feature in 1.8, maybe I'm doing something obviously wrong, but I don't get what... Here is my setup: (...) cache static_assets total-max-size 100 max-age 60 (...) frontend fe_main # HTTP(S) Service     bind *:80 name http     acl

Re: [PATCH 1/2] BUG/MINOR: lua: Fix default value for pattern in Socket.receive

2018-01-09 Thread Tim Düsterhus
Hi Am 09.01.2018 um 15:24 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 11:35:47AM +0100, Thierry Fournier wrote: >> Thanks for the patch. Good catch ! >> Willy, you can apply it. > > OK thanks for the review, all 4 patches applied now. > Thank you both. Willy, I notice that you did not

Re: cannot bind socket - Need help with config file

2018-01-09 Thread Imam Toufique
Hi Lukus, thanks again for your continued help and support! Here is my config file with updates now: frontend main bind :2200 default_backend sftp timeout client 5d listen stats bind *:2200 mode tcp maxconn 2000 option redis-check retries 3 option redispatch

Re: haproxy+QAT memory usage very high under busy traffic

2018-01-09 Thread Emeric Brun
Hi Julian, On 01/09/2018 03:28 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Julian, > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 08:50:48AM +, Julian Zhu wrote: >> We are testing haproxy+QAT card(Intel QuickAssist-Technology) and find that >> the memory usage of haproxy+QAT is much higher than that of haproxy alone. >>

Re: [PATCH] dns: Handle SRV record weights correctly

2018-01-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:39:29PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote: > Updated patch attached. cool, now applied, thanks! Willy

Re: [PATCH] dns: Handle SRV record weights correctly

2018-01-09 Thread Olivier Houchard
Hi, On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:28:22PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote: > Hi Willy, > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:17:24PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Hi Olivier, > > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:35:35PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The attached patch attempts to

Re: [PATCH] dns: Handle SRV record weights correctly

2018-01-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:28:22PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote: > Hi Willy, > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:17:24PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Hi Olivier, > > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:35:35PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The attached patch attempts to map SRV

Re: [PATCH] dns: Handle SRV record weights correctly

2018-01-09 Thread Olivier Houchard
Hi Willy, On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:17:24PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Olivier, > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:35:35PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The attached patch attempts to map SRV record weight to haproxy weight > > correctly, > > SRV weight goes from 0 to 65536

Re: haproxy+QAT memory usage very high under busy traffic

2018-01-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Julian, On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 08:50:48AM +, Julian Zhu wrote: > We are testing haproxy+QAT card(Intel QuickAssist-Technology) and find that > the memory usage of haproxy+QAT is much higher than that of haproxy alone. > Under the same traffic (about 120K connections), haproxy alone only

Re: [PATCH 1/2] BUG/MINOR: lua: Fix default value for pattern in Socket.receive

2018-01-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi guys, On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 11:35:47AM +0100, Thierry Fournier wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Thanks for the patch. Good catch ! > Willy, you can apply it. OK thanks for the review, all 4 patches applied now. Willy

Re: [PATCH] dns: Handle SRV record weights correctly

2018-01-09 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Olivier, On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 04:35:35PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote: > Hi, > > The attached patch attempts to map SRV record weight to haproxy weight > correctly, > SRV weight goes from 0 to 65536 while haproxy uses 0 to 256, so we have to > divide it by 256, and a SRV weight of 0

Re: 1.8.3 dns resolver ipv4/ipv6 undesirable behaviour

2018-01-09 Thread Marc Fournier
Marc Fournier writes: > Simply adding "resolve-prefer ipv4" makes the symptom go away, so no big > deal. But I wanted to point this out, as it might bite others, and I'm > pretty sure 1.7.x didn't have this issue. It turns out that "resolve-prefer ipv4" wasn't what

Re: cannot bind socket - Need help with config file

2018-01-09 Thread Lukas Tribus
Hello Imam, On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Imam Toufique wrote: > > Hi Jonathan, and Lucas, > > Thanks for your replies. With your help, I was able to get it work > partially. Please always CC the mailing list though. > frontend main *:2200 >#bind *:22 >

haproxy+QAT memory usage very high under busy traffic

2018-01-09 Thread Julian Zhu
We are testing haproxy+QAT card(Intel QuickAssist-Technology) and find that the memory usage of haproxy+QAT is much higher than that of haproxy alone. Under the same traffic (about 120K connections), haproxy alone only takes 6G memory while haproxy+QAT takes 36G. The only difference in config is